[ibis-macro] Re: Samples_per_bit question

  • From: ckumar <ckumar@xxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: <Arpad_Muranyi@xxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2011 15:13:47 -0700

<EB55FD6CF8C21444BE032D68DDA5FB99015C3E@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Message-ID: <f9b1c0847e466e28a266cdabf56feb86@xxxxxxxxxxx>
X-Sender: ckumar@xxxxxxxxxxx
User-Agent: RoundCube Webmail/0.3.1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

actually a major part of software work has to be done in the model. So the
model writer has to be good in software. 
Models themselves may have to do much more complex things. Different
sections of the model themselves may require different sampling rates.

So I do not buy the argument that models can be somehow be week in
software. Ultimately they have to work real devices.

On Wed, 20 Jul 2011 22:08:13 +0000, "Muranyi, Arpad"
<Arpad_Muranyi@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> While I agree it is ugly, it is probably far better
> then require that the AMI model author should do the
> same in the model.
> 
> For one, if it is done in the tool, you will have only
> as many copies of the sample converter code as many
> tools exist, but if it is in the model, you will have
> to have as many copies of the code as many models exist.
> 
> But more importantly, I would rather trust the EDA tools
> for doing this conversion than the model makers.  Don't
> forget that GetWave is called multiple times, and the
> model will also have to take into account those boundaries
> correctly...
> 
> Arpad
> =============================================================
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ibis-macro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:ibis-macro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Scott McMorrow
> Sent: Wednesday, July 20, 2011 5:02 PM
> To: ibis-macro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [ibis-macro] Re: Samples_per_bit question
> 
> In that case, the EDA software must perform the necessary sample rate 
> conversion.  I agree that it's ugly.
> 
> 
> 
> Scott McMorrow
> Teraspeed Consulting Group LLC
> 121 North River Drive
> Narragansett, RI 02882
> (401) 284-1827 Business
> (401) 284-1840 Fax
> 
> http://www.teraspeed.com
> 
> Teraspeed® is the registered service mark of
> Teraspeed Consulting Group LLC
> 
> 
> On 7/20/2011 6:00 PM, ckumar wrote:
>> I do not agree with that.
>> What happens if the tx and rx requires different samples per bit?
Things
>> can get convoluted very fast.
>>
>> That is why the emphasis should be on that the models are always seeing
>> continuous signals. Any way that is what devices do in real life too.
>> They
>> sample a continuous signal coming into them. Software should be no
>> different.
>>
>> On Wed, 20 Jul 2011 21:47:23 +0000, "Muranyi, Arpad"
>> <Arpad_Muranyi@xxxxxxxxxx>  wrote:
>>> Mike, Scott, Kumar,
>>>
>>> First, the models I ran into recently were brand new models,
>>> probably not even released yet.  I don't know the reason, but
>>> it appears that the problem might be learning curve related
>>> on the author's part.
>>>
>>> This is why I tend to not agree with requiring the models to
>>> do the re-sampling for themselves.  This is extra burden on
>>> the model makers which we should try to avoid.  EDA vendors
>>> are probably better at writing such algorithms, and if the
>>> EDA vendor knows what sampling rate the model works with
>>> (using the proposed required and reserved parameter for that),
>>> they can do the re-sampling for the model if necessary before
>>> executing it.
>>>
>>> I would prefer to put this Sample_per_bit parameter in the
>>> AMI spec, and make it required, reserved.
>>>
>>>
>>> Ambrish,
>>>
>>> I agree that "to require a certain samples_per_bit for the model to
work
>>> is not good"
>>> but it does happen unfortunately.  But I am not sure what you mean
>>> by "We can deal with this at a tool level and not put anything in the
>>> spec".  How would
>>> the tool know how to deal with a certain model if it doesn't know
>>> what sample rate(s) the model works with?  I think the only way
>>> a tool can deal with this if every model would be required to
>>> tell the tool with a reserved parameter what its sampling rate
>>> needs/capabilities are.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> Arpad
>>> =====================================================================
>>>
>>>
>>> From: ibis-macro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>> [mailto:ibis-macro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Mike Steinberger
>>> Sent: Wednesday, July 20, 2011 4:17 PM
>>> To: ibis-macro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>> Subject: [ibis-macro] Re: Samples_per_bit question
>>>
>>> Scott-
>>>
>>> Moving forward, we could conceivably take the approach you suggest.
That
>>> approach still doesn't address the models that are already out there,
>>> however. I, for one, don't want to be in the position of telling users
>> they
>>> can no longer run models that they've been running for years.
(Actually,
>> I
>>> know for a fact that I personally won't be in that position, so it's
>> really
>>> a choice for others to make.)
>>>
>>> Mike S.
>>>
>>> On 07/20/2011 03:53 PM, Scott McMorrow wrote:
>>> Ambrish
>>>
>>> Why not go the other direction, which would be to explicitly require
>> that
>>> the model perform sample rate conversion to any sample rate.
>>>
>>> Scott
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Scott McMorrow
>>>
>>> Teraspeed Consulting Group LLC
>>>
>>> 121 North River Drive
>>>
>>> Narragansett, RI 02882
>>>
>>> (401) 284-1827 Business
>>>
>>> (401) 284-1840 Fax
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> http://www.teraspeed.com
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Teraspeed(r) is the registered service mark of
>>>
>>> Teraspeed Consulting Group LLC
>>>
>>> On 7/20/2011 4:49 PM, Ambrish Varma wrote:
>>> I think we all agree that to require a certain samples_per_bit for the
>>> model to work is not good. We can deal with this at a tool level and
not
>>> put anything in the spec as this will most definitely give it more
>>> prominence. In other words, model makers will feel compelled to 'do
>>> something' with this parameter.
>>> My 2 cents.
>>>
>>> -Ambrish.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> [cid:image002.gif@01CC46FB.CCC6FBB0]
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Ambrish Varma   |  Member of Consulting Staff
>>>
>>> P: 978.262.6431   www.cadence.com<http://www.cadence.com>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ________________________________
>>> From:
>>>
ibis-macro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:ibis-macro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>> [mailto:ibis-macro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Dmitriev-Zdorov,
>>> Vladimir
>>> Sent: Wednesday, July 20, 2011 4:25 PM
>>> To: msteinb@xxxxxxxxxx<mailto:msteinb@xxxxxxxxxx>;
>>> ibis-macro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:ibis-macro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>> Subject: [ibis-macro] Re: Samples_per_bit question
>>>
>>>
>>> Agree,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> We also encountered with such models. The problem is when something
does
>>> not work it is difficult to guess what's the problem and even after
that
>> it
>>> takes several tries to find an appropriate parameter.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Vladimir
>>>
>>>
>>> From:
>>>
ibis-macro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:ibis-macro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>> [mailto:ibis-macro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Mike Steinberger
>>> Sent: Wednesday, July 20, 2011 2:18 PM
>>> To: ibis-macro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:ibis-macro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>> Subject: [ibis-macro] Re: Samples_per_bit question
>>>
>>> Kumar-
>>>
>>> We agree with you in principle, and on the two occasions (years ago
now)
>>> when we encountered a model that required a specific number of samples
>> per
>>> bit, we did ask the model developers to make their models more
general.
>>> Unfortunately, neither the IBIS spec nor any customer required them to
>>> support an arbitrary number of samples per bit, so the model
developers
>> did
>>> not accept our suggestion.
>>>
>>> These models have now been in widespread use for several years. Given
>>> that, how should we handle the problem? To date, the solution we've
>>> proposed is the Samples_per_bit reserved parameter.
>>>
>>> Thanks.
>>> Mike S.
>>>
>>> On 07/20/2011 03:07 PM, ckumar wrote:
>>>
>>> the ami model should treat the waveforms as continuous. They should
>>>
>>> resample it inside the model for their requirements.
>>>
>>> Requiring specific sample size is an unnecessary constraint.
>>>
>>> On Wed, 20 Jul 2011 19:44:03 +0000, "Muranyi, Arpad"
>>>
>>> <Arpad_Muranyi@xxxxxxxxxx><mailto:Arpad_Muranyi@xxxxxxxxxx>  wrote:
>>>
>>> Hello everyone,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I recall that we asked Walter to remove the proposed Samples_per_bit
>>>
>>> Reserved AMI parameter from BIRD 121, which he did in BIRD 121.1.
>>>
>>> What I don't remember is whether we made this request because we
>>>
>>> decided that we didn't want/need this reserved parameter in the AMI
>>>
>>> specification at all, or whether we just didn't want to propose this
>>>
>>> in BIRD 121, since it seemed unrelated to the rest of the BIRD 121
>>>
>>> content.  Could someone please refresh my memory on that?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> The reason I am asking is because just recently I ran across a couple
>>>
>>> of AMI models which only work at certain samples per bit settings
>>>
>>> but there was no documentation that I am aware of that came with the
>>>
>>> model that stated that.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I am not sure if this was done intentionally by the model's authors,
>>>
>>> but it seems that a required reserved parameter would at least serve
>>>
>>> as a reminder to the model makers to document the value at which
>>>
>>> their model works, if not remind them to write models that work at
>>>
>>> any reasonable samples per bit values.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Based on this experience I tend to feel that a required, and reserved
>>>
>>> parameter for Samples_per_bit would be very useful in the AMI spec...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Comments, suggestions are welcome.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Arpad
>>>
>>> ======================================================================
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>> IBIS Macro website  :  http://www.eda.org/pub/ibis/macromodel_wip/
>>>
>>> IBIS Macro reflector:  //www.freelists.org/list/ibis-macro
>>>
>>> To unsubscribe send an email:
>>>
>>>    To:
>>>
>>
ibis-macro-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:ibis-macro-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>    Subject: unsubscribe
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> IBIS Macro website  :  http://www.eda.org/pub/ibis/macromodel_wip/
>> IBIS Macro reflector:  //www.freelists.org/list/ibis-macro
>> To unsubscribe send an email:
>>    To: ibis-macro-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>    Subject: unsubscribe
>>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> IBIS Macro website  :  http://www.eda.org/pub/ibis/macromodel_wip/
> IBIS Macro reflector:  //www.freelists.org/list/ibis-macro
> To unsubscribe send an email:
>   To: ibis-macro-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>   Subject: unsubscribe
> 
> 
1�+���+^��i��0��Z��?�������f����u�p�����i�����y�h�m�����y�b��(�������������{.n�+���zwZ�é??Tè?¸ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½+�����-~���+-���+���-�{.n�+
---------------------------------------------------------------------
IBIS Macro website  :  http://www.eda.org/pub/ibis/macromodel_wip/
IBIS Macro reflector:  //www.freelists.org/list/ibis-macro
To unsubscribe send an email:
  To: ibis-macro-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  Subject: unsubscribe

Other related posts:

  1. Home
  2. ibis-macro
  3. Archive
  4. 07-2011